Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Resting orders" usefully signals that only open, unfilled orders are affected, but the description says nothing about irreversibility, whether calling with no filters wipes every open order across all markets, what the response contains, or any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the scoping condition attached. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs reordering.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is cancelled and that filtering is optional, which is the minimum needed. It leaves the destructive semantics and cancel-all behavior underspecified, which matters most for exactly this kind of tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each of key, side, and market is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does add a little meaning by framing side and market as optional narrowing filters ("if you name it"), but it gives no format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Cancels your resting orders") and clarifies scope with "on one market or side if you name it." It is distinguishable from get_orders and place_order by the mutation verb, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: naming a market or side narrows the cancel, and naming neither presumably cancels everything. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_orders/place_order, and no warning about the cancel-all default when called with no arguments.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.